I abhor the show, "Earth: Final Conflict", because it gets
away with some very ignorant stereotyping of gay people, as
manifest in the Taelon race. I know Gene Roddenberry dreamed
of including gay folks as regular characters in his Star Trek
series...though was censored by the Hollywood
brownshirts.

When I first watched EFC ("Earth: Final Conflict"), I was
shocked to see this Taelon character: very swishy,
wrist-flicking, lisping, sissified, elitist, weird-looking,
ASEXUAL geek. I had to conclude that these Taelons were
created from the mind of a well-meaning, but ignorant,
heterosexual. Sure, Roddenberry finally got his wish: but at
what cost to REAL gay people still burdened with the yoke of
tyranny by the same country that produces tripe like
EFC?

Here we have an alien FAGGOT behaving like every good faggot
should (in the eyes of dogmatic Christians that is), by not
having any sex. And, by defining them as asexual, the show
could go on without the censors' interference, which WOULD
have happened if they were portrayed as outright homosexual.
Of course, everyone KNOWS the Taelons are silly queers...and
in that way, and only that way, would the Amerikan publik
accept such regular gay characters.

If I were a well-meaning but ignorant hetero sci-fi writer, I
guess I could come up with a race of queers that--by virtue of
being asexual (as the Good Lord wants them to be)--would
evolve into these freaky types with enormous brains that
resulted from all this unused sperm backing up the spine. Now,
they would be put to use serving (hetero) mankind.

These Taelon faggots are catering to every need of all the
earthling, redblooded HETERO heroes...not a gay person among
them. Again, the good Christian role of every queer is to not
only be asexual, but a SERVANT, a SLAVE dedicated to the
happiness of heterosexual relationships. Just like in that
Australian film, "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"; where some
drag queens are stuck in a redneck town, enhancing the
romantic lives of the hetero residents. Damned if they didn't
assist the happiness of any GAY person living there (which
residents didn't even seem to exist).

These Taelons are in no way handsome, or robust heroes as are
the star characters, who are OBVIOUSLY Amerikan breeders.
Also, "Taelon" suggests "talon", and you just know how faggots
love to pull out their claws and scratch your eyes out, honey!
Now, why stop with Taelons? Why not "Babloons": a dark-skinned
race that trades in watermelon seeds, and whose lips are so
big, they can actually vibrate into action, their marvelous
rocket engines? Or yellow-skinned, slant-eyed "Bayjings",
whose massive overbite can open fuel pods with a single chomp?
Or "Gimplets" whose twisty vestigial legs can serve as hooks
for grasping and riding on asteroids?

But my favorite idea is this: a sci-fi show featuring
"Heteroids": giant, semi-intelligent hemorrhoids that are
breeding themselves into oblivion by their own animal lust.
They, too, would be heroes (in a way)...as an example of the
horrors of overpopulation and dogma of heterosexual
supremacy.

I'd like to speak out against your derision of the show, Gene
Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict.

First off if you think the Taelons, the alien species depicted
in the show, is a representation (and as you say, a
misrepresentation) of homosexuals you are wrong. The Taelons
are no where within the scheme "human". They, in the show's
mythology, are asexual and androgynous and more specifically,
in their true form, energy based, having no physical exterior.
So this already rules out genitalia, the one key factor
defining sexuality. So they are neither MALE nor FEMALE,
sexually, thus they CANNOT be homosexual or heterosexual. The
Taelons are dubbed male, for the simple fact that it is eases
reference (it superficially eliminates the need of considering
them "it"). Why "male," may be the fact that you could
probably be right in that the show tries to elevate the "male
gender." But this argument is geared more to women's rights
than gay rights.

To get back on their energy-based life force, the Taelons are
in their long evolution attempting spiritual perfection, no
longer needing or being inhibited by any physical factors. One
fact could be that because they are "asexual" and also
"physical-less", they lack sexual drive (without sexual
organs, there cannot be sexual drive or even need of sex),
thus not being either "heterosexual" or "homosexual." And one
question is to you: where did you get the idea that they
depict homosexuals? Every single Taelon shown on the show is
played in real life by a female. The contradiction and attempt
at "females" playing male-depicted roles is one problem that
may support your argument of homosexuality. But, being an avid
fan of the show, I believe this wasn't the purpose or
philosophy behind the show.

And when you say that the Taelons are "slaves" to humanity,
then I must say, you haven't viewed the show, or at least in
an unbiased way. Gene Roddenberry derived much of the show's
essence in depicting how humanity would deal with an advanced
alien culture, and the roles and problems that may be
encountered. This is what greatly drew me to show; it is
unique and focuses more on humanity than any other alien
species. The whole basis of the show was to show that despite
the Taelons "benevolent" gifts to humanity, they have an
ulterior motive to subjugate humanity to save their dying race
and to fight off their enemies and genetic brethren, the
Jaridians, by bioengineering, forced experiments,
manipulation, subterfuge, and geopolitical exploitation. All
these things are completely opposite to any slave or
subservient qualities.

Lastly, the most important argument would be the one that
encompasses "gender" as a whole. We can all agree that sex is
"what's between the legs" and gender is "what's between the
ears" (i.e. brain). Wholly considered, gender doesn't truly
exist, only sex. "Male" and "female" genders are subjective
and psychological labels we, as a society as a whole, have
pinned on people. We came up with the idea that females are
soft, sensitive creatures juxtaposed with males, the macho,
dominant, in-control-of-their-emoti ons hardheads. If that is
tue, would G.I. Jane be more male than female? Would the
Amazon warriors of the ancient times be males in essence,
although all being women? No. The inferiority complexes dubbed
on females is groundless and the societal label of males as
"sex obsessed, unintelligent, foolish pigs" is also just as
bad.

This leads into the argument of homosexuality, which despite
what is said, is pervasive (not in any negative connotation)
in society, and has a long history extending as far as the
beginnings of rational Homo Sapiens and is not cultured or
imposed of only in America. It is said that if the world
population was reduced to "100" people, "11" would be gay.
Homosexuality exists among ALL people and places. But
homosexuality exists exactly in the context it is limited to:
sexuality, that is when a "male" (the sex of a human) has
intercourse, copulation, or sexual union with a human of the
same "male" sex. Where the whole idea of psychological
viewpoint of lesbians as manly, or homosexual men, as feminine
or soft, is as mentioned of the "gender theory", groundless.
No matter how sensitive, soft, "sissified" a boy is, it
doesn't make him a homosexual. Only when he copulates either
through oral, anal or group masturbation (of sexual stimuli
involving 2 or more people, of the same sex) gives the title
of "homosexual" correctly justified.

I am in no way trying to justify the "heterosexual agenda," if
such exists, or trying to spread my message of homosexuality
or gender, either through a secular point-of-view or a
Christian doctrine. Although, I am trying to defend your
unjustified insult to Earth: Final Conflict, a unique
science-fiction anthology that tries to analyze the basic
ideas of what is "human." Before you can make a judgement, a
viewpoint, a statement about anything, you must first
understand it. After all, isn't that how all forms of
abhorrent prejudice (racism, sexism, religious persecution,
homophobia or even hetero-"phobia") is based - through
unreasoned, unjustified, un-"knowledgeable" facts?

Dearetht Clueleth Breeder Earthling:

I know you ekthpect me to lithp, tho I'm giving you thome
thatithfacthon right now. However, no more "lithping" for the rest of
my essay, as my strong alien accent will only get in the way of
important communique.

Every single point you make--however poorly--was already deconstructed
in comrade Zeke's essay, "Taelons = Queer Stereotype", which
anticipated such unworthy comments like yours. Your kind must suffer
the sad fate that is the lot of heterosexuals, for it is not the
Creator's intent that you be designed with too much intelligence!

Forget for a moment, all the Rodenberry crap plugging up your mind like
a Klingon bowel impaction (which, incidentally, can go on for centuries;
much like the ignorant hubris of your own pseudo-gay friendly hetero
earthlings, who insist on being the last word on homosexuality even in
relation to queers).
Ever hear the saying: "One picture is worth a thousand words?" Well,
put all those Final Conflict words out of your mind, if you want to get the picture! So just forget Earth: Final Conflict,
Gene Rodenberry, and Star Trek! Forget they ever existed at all. Clear
your mind like Exlax to anus...then look at us anew, with the unbiased
eye of a Vulcan executioner (please scroll down):

Now c'mon, give us a break! How on earth wouldn't "faggot" be the
immediate thing to come to mind, when seeing us for the first time?
Most humans do, in fact, react this way as their first impression. (And
please notice we are all clothed in shades of purple or pink: clearly an indication of being "that way"!)
Do you think we were born yesterday? No matter how much you attempt to
window-dress our species, slice dice or ice us, we still remain, as
ever:

Stereotypical faggots from the 21st century; out of the twisted minds of possibly well-meaning
(but still dumb) Hollywood breeder elite script writers and producers.

Even you as much as said we are women stuck in male bodies! How's that for an obvious stereotype? And that's just one among numerous examples so expertly presented in comrade Zeke's brilliant essay. (Brilliant for an earthly sentient being, that is.)

Yes, we are portrayed as asexual and androgynous; which cleverly passes
the TV industry's anti-homosexual censors. But we assure you,
Zebsurfer, that between tapings we just can't get enough
of each other's frail little jail bait bodies as much as possible. Why,
we're about as horny as those randy little Tribbles! (Minus the
fertility factor of course.)

While we are portrayed as heroes--like our earthling counterparts--not
one of us is the least bit attractive. Unlike the human stars who, we
might add, are all portrayed as heterosexuals! Like all previous
Rodenberry series, not so much as even one clearly homosexual character has appeared in any of their myriad shows!

We are the closest things to homosexuals ever
portrayed in Star-Trek-like series. the (obviously heterosexual and--if
gay--hetero ass licking) writers may have been well-meaning, but we are
portrayed as sterotypical faggots, because your sub-intelligent culture
would howl in outrage should we ever come out of our closet on the boob
tube!

Zebsurfer, your hetero slip is showing, when you make a statement that
homosexuals can only be defined by having sex with another hominid of
the same gender. A fine example of breeder hubris! As if heterosexuals
were the only gender to dignify their relationsips...by defining queers
as incapable and even unworthy
of having affectionate and spiritual feelings for those they truly
love. Just like those unworthy breeders (as you most certainly are,
poor ape) to define who and what queers are; never mind asking sexual
minorities how they see themselves in the scheme of things!

You said something very revealing: "Gene Roddenberry derived much of the show's essence in depicting how humanity would deal with an advanced alien culture."
And it is all too clear to us Taelons (and enlightened human queers),
that both your race and our "advanced culture" are devoid of any
homosexual presence or even acknowledgment. What happened to them? Were
they all exterminated, or perhaps isolated on some hideously remote and
dark planet, out of view of any godly heterosexual (or asexual)?

And where you say: "Before you can make a judgement, a viewpoint, a statement about anything, you must first
understand it."
I can only shake my bulbous head in pity, for it is all too obvious
that you remain ignorantly heterocentric to the core. For you willfully
remain pathetically ignorant about the true spirit of homosexuality,
which is: brotherly (or sisterly) love. And to understand that, you must first understand queers. You, dim-witted antrhopoid, do not.

But we queers of the universe always have the final laugh (if not the final conflict [*snicker*] ), because we have a secret we shall now reveal to you:

No sentient being can travel beyond the immediate vicinity of its own home planet,
unless and until the entire global population is totally homosexualized!

For the details on this cosmic law, see Zeke's essay entitled "NeoChristianity"...and perhaps "The First Christ", where Kurt Vonnegut's Tralfamadorians reveal themselves to be 100% homosexual.

In conclusion, we can only wag our imaginary penises (which have been
unceremoniously castrated by Rodenberry's disciples) and remark:

"Why wear the pink triangle, when you look as faggoty as us?"

Ambassador Da'an [ Taelon Synod, North America ]

One of our human admirers, John Havrilchak, e-mailed these flattering illustrations by his own hand:

Thanks, John! Next time you're abducted, we'll treat you to one
week's free holiday on the next artificial planet we build.

We are inspired to replace your Mt. Rushmore with this more down-to-earth rendering.